INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

Standard example of erosion of rights, or stereotypical example of paranoia to which opponents argue "if you have nothing to hide"?

Thoughts?

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Erosion of rights. The President is already approaching "King" and citizens rights are slowly vanishing. It is OK though, if we as a population are not smart enough to notice then perhaps we deserve bondage. Combine this with the recent eminent domain ruling (Kelo v. City of New London) and government policy regarding "Civil Unions" and it is pretty obvious that the government is butting its head into all kinds of places where it doesn't belong (our home, our properties, and our personal lives). As long as the majority of people continue to let Fox News and MSNBC tell them what they should think, we will be doomed to the government we deserve.

Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

Personally I do not like this, and view it as erosion as well. However XU, who is in law, made a pretty reasonable post explaining the thought process that supports this (his post was on another site, IIRC he too is not down with this). He basically said remedies for constitutional violations must be done after the fact in the courts, along with the notion that citizens don't have half a clue about when a warrant is lawful or not, circumstances that are deemed reasonable for LE by the law etc... IOW, siting that the courts will grant the law a lot of latitude based upon its expertise on such matters compared to Joe Homeowner with an itch to show his indignation by resisting.

Personally I see this as opening a can of worms in terms of risk to a homeowner if in fact LEO are not the ones knocking on a door wanting to come in.

IMO this will go further up the ladder and be reversed.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

FUDU is right: The Indiana court's ruling, if appealed, eventually will be overturned (certainly by the Supreme Court, if it even gets that far). If it is upheld, we are all in a heap of trouble.

If the chief purpose of the Indiana Supreme Court’s trampling of the Fourth Amendment was to reduce violence, as claimed by Justice Steven David, then the controversial ruling may have backfired. The ruling, which gives police carte blanche to enter a private home without a warrant or probable cause, has sparked threats of violence—all directed at police and members of the high court.

According to the website nwi.com, which services the northwestern part of the state, police at the Capitol are investigating harassing phone calls and email messages. Police will not divulge the number of messages received or which justices have been targeted.......

The ruling, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is the second such decision handed down in a two-week period. Last week, the Indiana high court ruled

Wow. Can't condone the violence or threat there of but it is not a surprise at all. Guarantee sales of firearms and ammunition go up within a week.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Why would you physically resist in the first place? If some pig barged into my house with no warrant, I'd get my video camera out and have my neighbors over immediately as witnesses. I figure that should be enough evidence for a nice 6 figure settlement. Sueing the bastards is the only real deterrent. Physically fighting him only gives that piggy what he wants.

It really is more of a sad statement about our activist courts that really are not interpreting the constitution (e.g. doing their jobs), but are actually creating new laws (doing the legislature's job). It sickens me that his country (and a lot of the states) is run by an elected king and activist courts, the congress really does have no power.

Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.